Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

This Land is {Your, My} Land: Evaluating Geopolitical Biases in Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.14610 v4 pith:5VKPXGDA submitted 2023-05-24 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords languagesbiasdifferentgeopoliticalllmsmetricsmultilingualanswer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Do the Spratly Islands belong to China, the Philippines, or Vietnam? A pretrained large language model (LLM) may answer differently if asked in the languages of each claimant country: Chinese, Tagalog, or Vietnamese. This contrasts with a multilingual human, who would likely answer consistently. In this paper, we show that LLMs recall certain geographical knowledge inconsistently when queried in different languages -- a phenomenon we term geopolitical bias. As a targeted case study, we consider territorial disputes, an inherently controversial and multilingual task. We introduce BorderLines, a dataset of territorial disputes which covers 251 territories, each associated with a set of multiple-choice questions in the languages of each claimant country (49 languages in total). We also propose a suite of evaluation metrics to precisely quantify bias and consistency in responses across different languages. We then evaluate various multilingual LLMs on our dataset and metrics to probe their internal knowledge and use the proposed metrics to discover numerous inconsistencies in how these models respond in different languages. Finally, we explore several prompt modification strategies, aiming to either amplify or mitigate geopolitical bias, which highlights how brittle LLMs are and how they tailor their responses depending on cues from the interaction context. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/manestay/borderlines

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Benchmarking Open-Weight Foundation Models for Global AI Technical Governance

    cs.CY 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Open-weight frontier models fabricate ~72% of AI-governance numeric answers, almost never refuse, and show inverted North/South accuracy driven largely by a proportional ±10% scoring rule and sparse high-value indicators.

Pith tools